No, the only real solution would be to ensure that it is always illegal to resist police, while simultaneously ensuring much stricter civil and criminal remedies against law enforcement officers who violate the Constitution. "Good faith" is greatly abused, IMO.

Originally Posted by JohnnyCache

Note that the case was NOT a no-knock, but a knock and talk - they walked into his house behind him. There was no entry here in the sense being hyperbolized in the thread.

Domestic violence is despicable, but so is knocking and talking to expand the scope of searches. Did you read the actually brief? Police were called, when they arrived, no domestic violence was in evidence, just the agitated barnes packing and leaving. As he re-entered the house, the officers attempted to follow him, he told them no, they needed a warrant, they insisted, he resisted, they tazed him to the point of hospitalization in the ensuing fight.

Note that at no point in the preceding was the entry lionized- the decision of the court was that Barnes was not acting lawfully when he resisted the search, despite the violation of the 4th amendment. The statute would rectify that, it would not provide safe haven in a foot chase or deny entrance in the case of legitimate probably cause.

Barnes may have correctly parsed his rights or he may have merely happened to be correct, it's hard to say.

Such resistance is allowed in other states, and the sky hasn't fallen - it's very hard to prove you acted correctly.

Legislating on the basis of what misconceptions about the law people might develop is a true slippery slope that isn't good for anyone.

Maybe we should take away the extension of self defense to other parties, for example, because right to life whackjobs might take it to mean they can shoot doctors in defense of fetuses

So Johnny, I can see that you're for legalization. That's great and all, but I fail to see how your rant actually relates to the discussion. I hope that you are aware that there are many, many laws for which a person can be arrested or a home can be searched other than drug laws. In fact, the case that served as the impetus for this discussion was a domestic violence case.

P.S., I'm for legalization too.

If you're really for legalization, you should probably quit your job, if you can do so in fairness to family finances. Because right now you're an employee of a system that literally uses the threat of anal rape and loss of access to education and employment to compel college age kids to roll on friends and neighbors so they can be tried and imprisoned for something you think should be legal.

It's not like speeding, dude. People go to prison and get their lives permanently assfucked and never leave the system - over something that's legal in one state, medicine in another, felony in the next. I know it's very hard, politically, to be the guy that says "I side with the dreadsack wearing, hackysack kicking, smelly assholes and the time for prosecuting this is past" but it needs to happen.

There's no choice but to confront you, to engage you, to erase you. I've gone to great lengths to expand my threshold of pain. I will use my mistakes against you. There's no other choice.

No, the only real solution would be to ensure that it is always illegal to resist police, while simultaneously ensuring much stricter civil and criminal remedies against law enforcement officers who violate the Constitution. "Good faith" is greatly abused, IMO.

The problem is, if you get caught in a victimless crime during a knock and talk, even if you spend the thousands of dollars and invest the boundless time it takes to fight the system and invoke the fruit of the poisoned tree, the bell cannot be un-rung - you're money is gone, your time is gone, and you're wearing the scarlet A in front of your friends, neighbors, employers, and local law enforcement.

That's why the 4th amendment doesn't say, "The citizen shall have the right to have things discovered during unreasonable searches and seizures semi-expunged from public record after years of legal wrangling at the expense of the accused" - it was known to the founders that the search itself, as much as the legal fallout, could be socially weaponized.

There's no choice but to confront you, to engage you, to erase you. I've gone to great lengths to expand my threshold of pain. I will use my mistakes against you. There's no other choice.

Naw, go ahead an keep it. You live in a country with a completely different level and protocol concerning guns, society and law enforcement.

Is that why I'm horrified at the idea of the legislature giving outs to people to shoot, or shoot at cops? This just seems like an immeasurably bad idea. Is it the residual English schoolboy fear-of-authority, or am I just a rational civilized person in an America going mad?

If anyone pulled a gun on a cop, I'd be disappointed if they weren't immediately shot/tazed/clubbed/tackled themselves, at least until they could be cuffed, and charged with everything in the book on wielding a weapon, threatening an officer of the law, attempted murder etc etc.

Is there some plague of hillbilly methhead killer cops I haven't heard about, that prompted this? Pardon my cynicism, but it seems like rural agitation for cheap political points...with a potentially tragic downside.http://www.indy.gov/eGov/County/MCSD...l_affairs.aspx

Internal Affairs Office Frequently Asked Questions

Who may file a complaint?Any person who feels he or she has been the victim of employee misconduct may file a complaint. If you are under the age of 18, a legal guardian must accompany you when filing the complaint.

Your assuming all Police are saints and none of them will abuse their power. We give them to much power as it is. Too many of them have been abusing their authority lately simply because they have to much. There has to be limits. If a cop is barging into your house and doesn't have a warrant you shouldn't just have to sit there and wait to see if he decides to kill or beat you or whatever. Just because you put on a uniform doesn't mean you should have more rights.

Is that why I'm horrified at the idea of the legislature giving outs to people to shoot, or shoot at cops?

Show me where it says this anywhere in that measure. Yes, right now.

If anyone pulled a gun on a cop, I'd be disappointed if they weren't immediately shot/tazed/clubbed/tackled themselves, at least until they could be cuffed, and charged with everything in the book on wielding a weapon, threatening an officer of the law, attempted murder etc etc.
Is there some plague of hillbilly methhead killer cops I haven't heard about, that prompted this? Pardon my cynicism, but it seems like rural agitation for cheap political points...with a potentially tragic downside.

Police were called, when they arrived, no domestic violence was in evidence, just the agitated barnes packing and leaving. As he re-entered the house, the officers attempted to follow him, he told them no, they needed a warrant, they insisted, he resisted, they tazed him to the point of hospitalization in the ensuing fight.

Thats not quite the way I read it..or maybe Im reading it from the perspecive of a guy whos been there before.

They were dispatched to a "domestic violence in progress call" which means a person called 911 for help. On arrival the woman tosses some luggage at the male in the parking lot and goes back into the house..the man follows. There is plenty of reasonable suspicion to believe that some sort of domestic violence could have occurred prior to LE arrival. Did he hit her? Did he choke her? Did he threaten her with a knife? Who knows? You going to let him go back inside after her without determining what made her call 911? There was no evidence in the court summation I read that indicated that the officers had concluded their investigation and determined that no DV had occurred.

Hindsight being 20/20 they probably SHOULD have arrested him for disorderly conduct in the parking lot and then talked to the woman afterward and avoided all the 4th amendment issues. But people would then have had an issue with the police abusing the dis con laws.....

They were dispatched to a "domestic violence in progress call" which means a person called 911 for help. On arrival the woman tosses some luggage at the male in the parking lot and goes back into the house..the man follows. There is plenty of reasonable suspicion to believe that some sort of domestic violence could have occurred prior to LE arrival.